Abstract [en]

Around the time of the Vietnam war the way journalists were looked upon by society changed aswell as their own praxis. Daniel C Hallin describes it as they went from appearing as an extended part of the government to being watchdogs. They went from being typrewritersoldiers to monitoring the government and a higher standard of journalism came with it. A previous study of mine of the New York Times report of the Vietnam war showed that the way sources were used changed during the course of the war. And the report went from being positive to opposing the war. This study examines New York Times report of the Iraq war and focuses on the role of the newspaper. Were their journalists watchdogs or typewritersoldiers. By making a quantative content analysis focusing on four dates in 2003 and the same dates 2005. The study sees how the newspaper used it 's sources and if it stood behind President Bushs motives for the war.

The study applies Pierre Bourdies field theory which describes media and politics as fields that are in a contest with eachother. Their interactions are controlled by norms. This study looks at the changes that occured during the Vietnam war as the norms changning. Media grew more independent from politics and monitoring the government became the norm instead of broadcasting it 's messages. This study describes a capitalistic system that pressures the media to produce news even if they're unsure of it's sources. Aswell as a political climat in the USA that prioritised national security. President George W Bush used these factors in a smart way and created a situation where the media once again became less independent from the political field during the first stages of the war.

Previous studies done by Rod Brookes and Justin Lewis and F.A.I. R have shown that parts of the brittish and american tv-media were pro-war in a majority of their broadcasts. This content analysis had a similar result. During 2003 a majority of the newspapers sources came from the american military and the political field. It concludes that the NY Times was positive to Bushs motives for the war. But grew sceptical and questioned them in 2005. The discussion in the study connects this to more anti-war sources coming forward as a consequence of Bush losing the flow of information. A comparison with the Vietnam war shows that the journalists covering the Iraq war used military sources significantly more (32,3% in 2003 and 10 % in total in the Vietnam war). And questioned their sources less than in the coverage of the Vietnam war.

The conclusion of the study is that the higher standard of journalism that surfaced during the Vietnam war wasn 't present at the start of the Iraq war.